Opinions on genuine takebacks

This game was played by me just now.

I wanted to play 16. Qc7 to trade and double up rooks on the c file and potentially on 7th rank.
But while playing Qc7, I dropped my mouse on c3.
I tried to request him once in chat. My opponent coldly replied "Sorry".
My idea was evaluated as +1.5 by stockfish, so I was surely not annoying him with useless takebacks in a losing position!
Would you accept takebacks during obvious misclicks/mouseslips?

I would if there is reason to believe that there was an obvious misclick or mouseslip and if the person immediately sends a takeback request.

Personally, I deactivated the takebacks on my settings. This removes the takeback button for me and for the opponent as well.

I was tired of always being the one accepting takeback requests, and the opponents never accepted mine. This way, it's the same rule for everyone, whether it's when I misclick or when they misclick. I accept it and consider it's (an annoying) part of the game.

I deactivated takebacks for the same reason as #3. I also turn on zen mode during the game, so they can complain all they want in the chat and I wont read a thing.

@AbhirupPal said in #1:
> This game was played by me just now.
>
>
> I wanted to play 16. Qc7 to trade and double up rooks on the c file and potentially on 7th rank.
> But while playing Qc7, I dropped my mouse on c3.
> I tried to request him once in chat. My opponent coldly replied "Sorry".
> My idea was evaluated as +1.5 by stockfish, so I was surely not annoying him with useless takebacks in a losing position!
> Would you accept takebacks during obvious misclicks/mouseslips?

The Theory of Takebacks:

Section A:

Question:

If you went to the afterlife and got to play Bobby Fischer, and he involuntarily blundered his queen, you would snap it off the board and feel as though you've earned bragging rights. But say it happens again? And again? And again? So, you ask others for a game and they, too, blunder piece after piece and winning position after winning position.

How many consecutive games could you take advantage of peoples' slips until you would be begging someone to actually play a good and blunder-free game against you? Or until you finally saw the value in allowing takebacks?

How would you like to be fated to always slip and always lose games due to the technicality of not being able to put the pieces where you intend them to go?

Answer:

This is raw misery. We are talking about miserable instances, here.

Thank goodness it doesn't have to be this way and we can choose better for ourselves!

-

Section B:

Let's consider the following fact:

Let's assume that we get "very lucky" and end up playing chess against 20 consecutive people who all blunder their queens.
That's +/- 120 points added to your score.

OK. So now, over a weekend, you've "gained 120 points" and you're that much closer to your first master's title, right? Wrong.
Everyone playing 120 objective points above your head will now quickly return you to your objective rating over the next 20-30-40 games.

The only way to objectively increase your score is to learn more and play better. All other methods will do absolutely nothing for your objective score at all.

In other words, when someone drops a queen due to an obvious mouseslip/spasm/hardware/software issue, the rest of that game is functionally a waste of time and it's also not even a chess game anymore.

I'm reminded of the time that Nakamura accidentally knocked over a rook with his sleeve and his opponent tried to engage the arbiter to have Nakamura penalized. The arbiter declared no foul and the play continued as it ought have.

It's my position that chess games should only be won by playing better chess. Full stop.
As per the logic in Section A, it's my contention that it's probably everyone's position, as well.

-

Section C:

Some chess players have forgone the headaches of worrying about Section A and Section B by disabling takebacks in their preferences menu located here: lichess.org/account/preferences/game-behavior

Their position is simply: "Sometimes I slip and sometimes you slip; sometimes I'll 'lose' points and sometimes you'll 'lose' points; sometimes I'll accidentally destroy games and sometimes you'll accidentally destroy your games. But, in the end, it's nothing to really cry too hard about. No big deal. We can either play-through or just resign and start fresh."

Yes, it's the case that people possibly lost/gained points that they can't maintain and possibly some time was wasted; however, their argument that they'd rather just make takebacks to be a complete non-issue, is still respectable.

They needn't spend any time in these topics at all, they needn't try to debate if a move was a legitimate slip or not, they don't have to deal with allowing takebacks on slips/glitches/spasms and then being denied takebacks when it's their turn to ask for grace; instead, they completely sidestep the matter, entirely, and just want to play on.

I think that this is down to personal choice.

I don't agree with this position because chess games don't deserve to be needlessly destroyed, and time probably shouldn't be unnecessarily wasted...but I call this 'no foul' and understand their position.

People who have disabled takebacks probably shouldn't really be on the radar.

-

Section D:

It takes a very special kind of person to be one win away from making it to their next 100-point benchmark, where they're in a losing position and their opponent slips/glitches/spasms their queen in an obvious mouseslip, and where they grant their opponent that takeback. This is a character trait that seems to make this planet a little bit better for everyone when people can muster the strength to choose these kinds of supernatural feats of sportsmanship.

The chances that it's never been a 10 year old girl who slipped/glitched/spasmed a queen on the other side of the board, is impossible. And there are very good odds that this has occurred on a kid's birthday on numerous occasions.

-

Section E:

In tournament play, there were no rules; in fact, pawns couldn't even move ahead two spaces until recently.
This game is continuously evolving.

Back in high school, I used to play chess with a buddy who would often pick up pieces and then put them back and choose a different move instead. Periodically, he'd notice that "Oh look, both of my bishops are on the same square! When did that happen? Can we put the board back how it was? No? OK. Then let's just void this game and start over."

When an opponent touches a piece, it automatically interrupts the calculation of their opponent to focus on all of the potential implications of that piece being moved. This can cause outcomes that wouldn't have otherwise occurred.

Enter 'The Touchmove Rule'.

So, it's clear that chess players have sometimes gamed the system and that it makes very good sense to mitigate this issue. I think it was Peter Leko who wore a purple and yellow zig-zag cardigan to a tournament in the early-mid 2000s. The arbiter made him remove it as it was deemed as a distraction. Again, superior play should decide winners, not people gaming the system with unfair advantages, like using silicon, obnoxious sweaters, or picking up pieces and then not moving them, etc.

It makes very good sense to implement a touchmove rule when these kinds of instances can occur Over The Board in a face-to-face forum.

This is how chess evolves! We do things that work and we stop doing things that don't work so well.

Also, this was, undoubtedly, the entire function behind the invention of "The Takeback Rule" for online play in the first place.

"Why should this perfectly good game be destroyed behind the necessary evils involved with online play? Let's add a takeback rule for online play so that games needn't be needlessly destroyed and time not be wasted." - Chess Evolution

Perfectly reasonable and efficient.

*'The Touchmove Rule' and The Takeback Rule' are two identical peas in an identical pod, and they were both invented by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and in order to produce the exact same effect.*

-

Section F:

Look, it's not always easy! 90% of us haven't even seen a rating above 2000, and when it comes to players rated <2200, blatant blunders are commonplace. It is not always obvious if a piece was dropped due to slip/glitch/spasm, or if it was just a bad move. Just do your best! If you have to think about it for more than a few seconds, then feel free to deny/allow the takeback, but, normally, legitimate takebacks are obvious and they are asked for within 1-2 seconds of the offense unless it's a provisional rating where someone hasn't yet found the takeback button.

Sometimes, I've allowed a takeback in good faith and expected my opponent to make a similar move, and then they think for some time and then do something completely different. Oh well. No big deal. It happens. Maybe it was a misclick, maybe it was someone gaming the takebacks. It's not too serious.

There are absolutely some people out there who will ask for a takeback but then never allow one when it's their turn to make good use of the rule. Just know that this is fairly rare, especially when we get into the 2000s.

-

Section G:

None of anything I've said here applies to bullet/blitz play.
I might allow takebacks in blitz, I might not. Both are "correct" answers.

If things are unclear or in time trouble just do your thing.

In these cases, there is probably no right/wrong answer.

-

Section H:

A great option for people who don't want to waste their time with destroyed games, would be for them to enable "Move Confirmation" found here: lichess.org/account/preferences/game-behavior.

It takes a bit longer but it's an option for people who find themselves with elevated stress after experiencing a slip/glitch/spasm.

For me, I ended up losing quite a few games due to having to get used to it, and, in the end, it is literally giving up time odds where seconds are very important, even at a 15 15 time control...but it's an option.

Luckily, for the one slip I get every few weeks/months, and many of my opponents who allow me takebacks, I've gotten to play without having to give up those time odds and many games have been restored and played through to an objective result.

-

In conclusion, in some instances, I think that in some cases there are decisions that clearly work better and that do not work better; and, just like an engine evaluation, there are sometimes instances where the decision is to choose between 6 of one or a half dozen of the other and it's just a matter of taste.

Now, go enjoy chess and try not to slip!

"This game was played by me just now"

Weird. At school they taught me:
"This game is being played by me now."

or more like a human
"I am playing this game now."

Your opponent should switch off takebacks if he's not going to grant them, unless of course he's one who asks for takebacks but never gives them.

I have the feature turned off, so there can never be any argument or ill feeling. I did this after I'd made a mouse click error myself. I decided at that instant I would not lower myself to ask for a takeback at that time or ever. So switching off the feature makes the problem go away.

It's existence is one of the few features I dislike about Lichess. That, and the absence of an "automatically refuse rematch requests," toggle.

I'll request a takeback if I make a mouse slip.

When I do, I will type in chat to my opponent that I made a mouse slip, and also tell my opponent what move I was intending to play instead.

More often then not, when I request a takeback under these circumstances, my opponents have accepted.

I always make sure to thank them afterward as well.

If my opponent declines, I'll play on, and remind myself to be more careful next time.

@Onyx_Chess said in #5:
>
You've just created a treatise on the takeback theory.

But I am considering what the difference between afterlife and the undead world is?

@pointlesswindows said in #9:
> You've just created a treatise on the takeback theory.
>
> But I am considering what the difference between afterlife and the undead world is?

Firstly, thank you for the recognition.

Secondly, 'knowing that one exists' might be the bottom-line catalyst that defines life...in which case...not only might the idea of distinguishing between lives become redundant, but we might also then interpolate that we might all be the exact same ingredient, as though an ocean was poured into separate cups, where even distinguishing between individual lives might also be redundant.

This idea is nicely reflected in reality where we see that the objective of getting along with ourselves seems to be the main challenge. We're slowly realizing that "family name" deserves quotations and that "human-being" does not.

We're seeing that mistreatment and selfishness (anti-love) steal the value of life from everyone, and we appear to be collectively moving in a direction that works better for everyone.

It's very interesting to say the least.

Go Team Planet Earth!! 🏽